Responding party directed to file Notice of Intent to Defend within five days or face default decision.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend.
The Board noted the parties' prior settlement discussions and adjournments, and directed the responding party to file its Notice of Intent to Defend within five working days, failing which the Board would decide the matter based solely on the applicant's materials.
Consent order declaring Athletica Inc. a successor employer and ordering payment of $4,000.
The applicant union brought an application for declaratory relief under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to the Board under section 133.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving all issues.
The Board issued a consent order declaring Athletica Inc. a successor employer to Crystaplex Plastics Ltd. and bound to the provincial collective agreement.
The Board also ordered Athletica Inc. to pay $4,000 to the applicant.
Representation vote ordered in construction industry certification application.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.
The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.
Further extension of time granted to file submissions due to Board's administrative error.
The applicant sought a suspension and appeal of an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The Board had previously granted an extension of time for the applicant to file additional submissions after retaining counsel, but failed to send a copy of that decision to the counsel.
The Board apologized for the administrative error and granted a further extension of time for the applicant to file submissions.
Consent order issued declaring collective agreement violations and ordering payment of $3,272.52 in damages.
The applicant union referred a grievance in the construction industry to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and requested the Board to issue a consent order.
The Board declared that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated several of its articles.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $3,272.52 in damages, representing unpaid remittances and compensation to a union member.
Employee request for review terminated following confidential settlement between the parties.
The applicant employee requested a review of an Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
The parties subsequently entered into confidential Minutes of Settlement.
As the settlement resolved all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the matter in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act.
Request to suspend health and safety order pending appeal declined as employer was already complying.
The applicant employer sought to suspend an Inspector's order requiring it to establish a joint health and safety committee for replacement workers during a strike, pending an appeal of that order.
The employer argued the order was unclear and could cause workplace divisions.
The Board declined to suspend the order or decide the merits of the suspension request at this time, noting that the employer had already filed a Notice of Compliance and the Inspector was satisfied with the current compliance.
The employer was permitted to revive the request if circumstances changed.
Application for review dismissed as untimely; applicant failed to justify 60-day delay in filing.
The applicant filed an application for review of an Officer's decision 60 days beyond the statutory 45-day time limit under the Employment Standards Act.
The applicant claimed she was out of town and did not receive the decision on time, but failed to explain a further one-month delay after dating the application.
The Board declined to extend the time limits, noting the applicant's failure to make mail arrangements and lack of prompt action upon return.
The application was dismissed as untimely.
Unfair labour practice complaint terminated due to applicant's failure to file a Certificate of Delivery.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair referral under section 75 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicant failed to include a Certificate of Delivery as required by Rule 25 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
Despite being notified by the Registrar, the applicant did not provide the certificate or explain its absence.
The Board declined to process the application and terminated the proceeding pursuant to Rule 39.
Board orders representation vote in construction industry certification application after employer fails to respond.
The responding party failed to file a response.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
Time limit to file application for review extended where applicant mistakenly sent appeal to Officer.
The applicant filed an application for review of an Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act two days beyond the 45-day statutory time limit.
The applicant explained that he mistakenly sent the appeal to the Employment Standards Officer instead of the Board.
The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time limit, finding it appropriate given the short delay and the reasons provided.
Adjournment request denied as inconvenience to witnesses due to business commitments is not a satisfactory reason.
The employer applied for a review of an Officer's decision to issue an Order to Pay and requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the date was inconvenient for its witnesses due to prior business commitments.
The Ministry of Labour consented to the adjournment.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment request, stating that it does not adjourn matters merely because hearing dates are inconvenient to witnesses, parties, or counsel, and directed the employer to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to present its case.
Three masonry contractors declared a single employer due to common control and erosion of bargaining rights.
The applicant unions sought a declaration under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three masonry contractors constituted a single employer.
The responding parties did not file responses or participate in the proceedings.
The Board determined the matter on the materials filed, finding that the entities were under common control and direction, and that the non-union entity was performing work previously done by the unionized entities.
The Board granted the application and declared the three entities a single employer to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Board cancels oral hearing and proceeds on written materials after responding parties fail to participate.
The applicants filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding parties did not file responses or express interest in the proceedings.
After ensuring affected employees received notice and an opportunity to participate, the Board granted the applicants' request to determine the matter based solely on the written materials provided, cancelling the scheduled oral hearing.
Board directs oral hearing to resolve factual disputes regarding validity of voluntary recognition agreement.
The applicant applied for certification in the construction industry.
The Board previously directed the applicant and intervenor to exchange pleadings on whether a valid voluntary recognition agreement existed between the responding party and the intervenor, which would bar the application.
Finding significant factual disputes in the submissions, the Board directed that the matter be resolved in a traditional oral hearing.
Board incorporated Minutes of Settlement and scheduled a hearing to determine additional monies owing.
The applicant union referred a grievance in the construction industry under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement, which they requested the Board to incorporate into a decision.
The Board declared that a subpoena served on a witness remained binding for the upcoming hearing and that the sole issue for determination at the hearing would be the amount of additional monies owing pursuant to the collective agreement violations.
The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing.
Grievance referral withdrawn with leave of the Board following Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party employer.
The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for a period not exceeding one year.
The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.
Board lacks jurisdiction to determine employment status of part-time college workers excluded from CCBA.
The applicant union sought a determination of the employment status of certain persons working at the Co-op, alleging the College was their true employer.
In a supplementary decision addressing issues overlooked in a prior ruling, the Board held it had no jurisdiction to determine the status of part-time employees, as they are excluded from the definition of 'employee' under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.
The Board also ruled that the customary order of proceeding would apply, requiring the applicant to proceed first.